Monday, December 2, 2013

In one of my previous posts I made the argument that open borders was not always the practical libertarian position. In my Two Islands post, I argued that statist-minded immigrants could and likely would destroy liberty if allowed to immigrate in large numbers. Here is what I said:

Let’s suppose there are two island nations. One is named Liberty Island
and the other one is Statist Island. Both are democracies. Neither have a
constitutionally constrained government. Both practice open
immigration. Since both island nations are democracies, the people get
the government they vote for.

On Liberty Island, the people
prefer smaller government, one which protects life, liberty, and
property. In general, the government doesn’t interfere unless a citizen
violates someone else’s right to life, liberty, and property. For the
most part, the role of government is to provide a small, defensive
military. Consequently, the tax rates are very low. The people of
Liberty Island are very prosperous.

On Statist Island, the people
want their government to provide a wide range of services and to
regulate the affairs of its citizens and companies. Consequently, the
government consumes a very large proportion of the wealth. Statist
Island has high unemployment and low growth rates. Over the past few
years, things have been so bad that many have migrated to Liberty
Island, not in search of liberty but primarily as a way to feed their
families. They have brought with them many of their customs and culture
which have made Liberty Island a more vibrant and diverse island.Unfortunately, they have also brought with them their statist political philosophy.The
new arrivals join with a minority of Liberty Island voters and start
winning elections. These elected representatives encouraged more and
more Statist Islanders to migrate to Liberty Island. Soon the statists
were in control of the Liberty Island legislative branches and the
presidency. They then enacted statist policies and liberty was no longer
to be found on Liberty Island.

Over at Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen links to a study of U.S. Immigrants' Attitudes Toward Libertarian Values by Hal Pashler which found that immigrants to the US generally are hostile toward libertarian ideas. Here is the abstract:

While
there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not
universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the
attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not
previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we
asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward
a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong
pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a
marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as
compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically
significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing
proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for
libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects
of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.

While
there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not
universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies,
the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian
values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010
General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born
residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which
self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as
described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of
lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to
US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically
significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With
increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low
support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the
political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to
diminish over time. - See more at:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/u-s-immigrants-attitudes-toward-libertarian-values.html#sthash.9gnQg64r.dpuf

While
there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not
universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies,
the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian
values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010
General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born
residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which
self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as
described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of
lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to
US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically
significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With
increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low
support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the
political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to
diminish over time - See more at:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/u-s-immigrants-attitudes-toward-libertarian-values.html#sthash.9gnQg64r.dpuf

If the primary purpose of government is to protect liberty, which most libertarians believe, then a government is justified in restricting immigration of individuals who hold views contrary to a constitutionally constrained government. Furthermore, if a group of immigrants has been shown to be overwhelmingly anti-libertarian in their views, then government is justified in limiting entry of individuals from that group just because they are from those countries where the people are hostile toward liberty.

Unfortunately, the US government's policy has been to encourage immigration from countries where there is little support for limited government, free exchange of ideas and products, and the rule of law. When a country is fairly evenly divided, these statist voters will have a huge impact in the future direction of the US.

EDIT: The original title of this post was "Libertarian Case Against Open Borders."

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Julie Borowski is hilarious. In this video she responds to old man McCain's comments about young maverick Rand Paul's filibuster of Obama's nomination of John Brennan to become the CIA Director. If the Republican Party is to have a future then it needs to adjust its message to be more appealing to young people. The GOP's current emphasis on foreign interventions and personal liberty interventions is a big turn off for today's youth. There is only one real issue today - the Debt Bomb - and it will affect young people more than any other group. THAT is what the Republican Party needs to be about.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Senator Rand Paul recently made some insightful points about the differences between The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Sen. Paul said, “The Tea Party, I always say, is more like the American Revolution, and Occupy Wall Street is more the French Revolution. . . . We (The Tea Party) weren’t unhappy with people just because they were rich; we weren’t happy with you (the banks) if you were making money off of our taxes and we were bailing you out. If you were making $100 million, your bank goes bankrupt and all of a sudden we bail you out and you’re still making $100 million — that upset us.”

The Tea Party hated the big bank bailouts because it violated the rule of law and would only encourage risky behavior in the future with taxpayers' underwriting the loses. Occupy Wall Street just hates rich people and corporations. Big difference. Liberals see the world as a clash between oppressors and the oppressed. Libertarians see the world as a clash between coercion and free choice. A political philosophy based on envy will not lead to win-win solutions, it will only give us lose-lose outcomes.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Teach Your Children Wellby Joseph SobranBecause I write about politics, people are forever asking me the best way to teach children how our system of government works. I tell them that they can give their own children a basic civics course right in their own homes.In my own experience as a father, I have discovered several simple devices that can illustrate to a child's mind the principles on which the modern state deals with its citizens. You may find them helpful, too.For example, I used to play the simple card game WAR with my son. After a while, when he thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, I created a new game I called GOVERNMENT. In this game, I was Government, and I won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. My boy soon lost interest in my new game, but I like to think it taught him a valuable lesson for later in life.When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is "fair." Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being "selfish" and "greedy." Later in life he will thank you.Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven't yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him and then send him to bed an hour early. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions. This will prepare him for the Supreme Court's concept of the U.S. Constitution as a "living document."

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Inspired by Robert Fulghum’s bestseller All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, I like to tell people that you learn the essence of libertarianism — which is also the essence of civilization — in kindergarten:

Monday, December 31, 2012

This year for Christmas my dad gave me Agenda 21 by Glenn Beck (with Harriet Parke). I know what you’re thinking. What kind of dad gets his teenage daughter a book by Glenn Beck for Christmas? But I thought I’d give it a try anyway. A quick internet search reveals that the book title is a reference to a non-binding UN plan of the same name intended to promote “sustainable development” at the international, national, regional and local levels. This plan strives to achieve social equity, reduce consumption and emphasize environmental preservation. In this book, the authors imagine a world in which the ideas of Agenda 21 are strictly implemented. Citizens are prohibited from anything that consumes more resources than it contributes. They are also forced to live and work in a society that allows no room for personal achievement or success.

This book's story line will be familiar to teen fans of recent dystopian novels that have come out since the incredible success of The Hunger Games. Like Matched by Allie Condie, Delirium by Laurent Oliver and Divergent by Veronica Roth, to name a few that I’ve read, Agenda 21 follows the story of a young girl who lives in a dystopian society. This girl, Emmeline, lives under the rule of an oppressive and over controlling government that has resulted from its attempt to make all people equal in every aspect. If you’re familiar with this story line, you pretty much know how this book is going to end. However, even knowing this, I really enjoyed the book. Unlike other dystopian novels, Agenda 21 does a better job of explaining how the government gained all this power to make this society the way it is. It’s fascinating and scary at the same time.

The government of this society became as powerful as it is by making small, subtle changes that went unnoticed until it was too late. Small changes were made and people were made to believe that they should all be equal. An older woman who was alive when the "reforms" were first implemented tells Emmeline that there were four types of people: the believers who supported the reforms; the protesters, who spoke out at great risk but were silenced; the quiet and watchful who put their heads down and said nothing; and the passive unbelievers who did not try to act until it was too late. She later elaborates on the fourth type, the passive unbelievers. She explains that they “trusted the way things were.” They believed that if they worked hard, they would succeed and be rewarded for their efforts. When the government started to make changes they still “trusted the way things were” and they missed the early warning signs. By the time they really understood what was happening, it was too late.

The story is about Emmeline's journey from acceptance of the way things are to someone who seeks freedom for herself and those she loves. Emmeline lives in an assigned community and in an assigned home with an assigned partner. She is one of the last children to be raised by her parents instead of in a “Children’s Village.” Because of her unusual upbringing, she recognizes the importance of family more than others her age. When she has a baby and the government takes it away to be raised in the “Children’s Village,” she is willing to do anything to see her baby. Her love for her child eventually motivates her to make a radical decision that changes her life.

Although this book may not have been written as a book for teenagers, I enjoyed it. If you like this type of book, you will probably like Agenda 21 as well.